Essay 1
Aquinas comments on Aristotle and compares the Mosaic Law to what Aristotle envisions. Looking at both the Mosaic law and the Aristotelian version of the ideal government, many similarities are seen according to Aquinas.
Aquinas defines rule in two ways: Regal rule and political rule. A king who rules regally is not bound by anything, and rules with complete authority. The king who rules politically is bound by law. Blythe supports Thomas Aquinas’ ideas on this matter. (page ___) Aristotle says (in a paraphrase by Kries) that, “Especially missing from the mixed regime of the Laws…are aristocratic and monarchic elements.”1 This shows how Aristotle wanted the best mixed regime to include rule by both a king and a few select members.
Aquinas shows us that the Sinai regime contained the king, and a group of seventy-two elders who were the wisdom to guide the king. The citizens themselves elected the elders. So here, we have all three forms just like Aristotle: Monarchic – a ruling king, Aristocratic – the guidance of the seventy-two elders, and Democratic – the people voting for the elders. (Blythe 560)
According to Aquinas, there may either be one species of government (monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy) or a combination of any of these species (the mixed government). Aquinas speaks of the mixed government this way also: (Kries 93).
Aristotle speaks in the Politics of how there should be a balance of different classes. Blythe speaks of Thomas seeing Aristotle’ intent to set up checks and balances for his government to ensure that there was not one group that had too much power.2 Aristotle favors the mixed government most.
Both authors speak of Aquinas’ belief in the rationality of the Mosaic regime because it matches very closely with the regime presented by Aristotle in the Politics. Both regimes have a similar structure.
Both Kries and Blythe say that Thomas Aquinas’ assessment of the Mosaic Law is correct in calling it the most reasonable form of government. Its rationality is evident when compared by Thomas with Aristotle’s ideal government in his work the Politics.
__________________________________________________________
1 Douglas Kries, “Thomas Aquinas and the Politics of Moses.” 90.
2 James M. Blythe, “The Mixed Constitution and the Distinction between Regal and Political Power in the Work of Thomas Aquinas.” Journal of the History of Ideas 47, no. 4 (Oct. – Dec. 1986): 564.
Essay 2
Medieval and Classical Perspectives on Death as a Virtuous Act
Contemporary research indicates that St. Thomas Aquinas used Aristotle’s notion of a “virtuous death” and used Aristotelian principles to explain martyrdom. This study will demonstrate how two contemporary articles show that martyrdom according to St. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, correlates with the Aristotelian notion of a virtuous death.
By the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas found inspiration in the Bible, in the Church’s history and in the noble martyrs of his day as well as in the writings of Aristotle. Using the Aristotelian notion of “causes” St. Thomas writes that the martyr’s death has two dimensions. The chief cause is charity and the secondary cause, the proper motive cause, is fortitude. The goal of natural fortitude that differs from supernatural fortitude would be, “the goal that cannot be grasped or loved by natural means but only by the theological virtues acting in concert with the infused virtues and gifts.” 1
Aquinas adopts this Aristotelian idea about death and further explains that martyrdom is “an act of the greatest perfection”2. Martyrdom is the highest level of obedience because one is “obedient unto death.”3 Virtue is not the act that one is trying to accomplish. The end or goal of the act is not for the sake of praise within oneself.
Aquinas makes several distinctions about a martyr’s death in comparison to a soldier’s death in battle. One sure way to distinguish martyrdom from the act of dying a virtuous death is to understand one’s intention. Aquinas makes this point clear: He warns that no one should place himself in a situation where martyrdom is the definite outcome.4 One more definition of his illustrates that martyrdom requires truth and justice as outcomes of the act of dying. “The merit of martyrdom is not after death . . . one must be willing to suffer for truth and justice.”5 Aquinas further develops this aspect of a virtuous death when he writes, “A praiseworthy act belongs to the virtue of charity which is the chief incentive of martyrdom.”6
In his article, “Is Martyrdom Virtuous? An Occasion for rethinking the relation of Christ and Virtue in Aquinas,” Patrick Clark presents several common ideas linking Aristotle’s idea of a virtuous death to the explanation of ‘martyrdom’. Clark’s study considers a symmetry between Aquinas’ views on courage and Aristotle’s point of view. He describes Aristotle’s view on suffering for a cause in these words: “For it is harder to withstand what is painful than to hold back from what is pleasant.”7 In a similar way, St. Thomas Aquinas states that to suffer is to undergo pain brought about by someone else. When someone dies in this way, the cause must be just and, in some way, must also teach others about virtue.
Clark states that for Aristotle, a soldier on the battlefield dies for something other than virtue. Clark also demonstrates how this idea is better developed in Aquinas’ understanding of death in battle. “For Aquinas, courage’s primary role in the moral life is to dispose the will to stand firm against evils that threaten to withdraw the will from the rule of reason.”8 This statement supports Aquinas’ teaching about the nature of martyrdom with regard to justice and the truth.9 Aquinas insists that martyrdom has to serve the purpose of bringing about truth and justice for others.
In his article Patrick Clark explains how Aquinas and Aristotle have similar ideas on the subject of a man going to war and dying in battle. Aristotle teaches that dying in battle is the greatest example of courage. Aquinas states that when dying in battle, “martyrs face a fight that is waged against their own person, and this for the sake of the sovereign good which is God.”10 Both Aristotle and Aquinas have similar ideas, because dying in battle is considered good, but for Aquinas, martyrdom is attained because the soldier knows the love of God and is willing to die for the truth.
As indicated in Yearley study, “The Nature-Grace Question in the Context of Fortitude,” the author also compares the nature of fortitude in death as used by both Aristotle and Aquinas. He writes that Aristotle defines fortitude as “most clearly realized in a man freely choosing for the sake of his community.”11 The view of fortitude given by Aristotle is ‘natural fortitude’ rather than Aquinas’ ‘supernatural fortitude’.
Yearley makes a distinction between the classical ideas of death in battle in comparison to martyrdom. He writes, “The citizen, soldier or patriot intellectually and emotionally grasps the meaning of the good of the community; he fully understands the importance and is willing to take actions that may involve giving up his life for its sake. But in the case of the martyr all temporal goods, even that of the community, would be sacrificed for the end or objects of the love of God.”12 Despite the distinction made here, both patriot and martyr exemplify the virtues of dying for the truth. Yearly, nevertheless, wants to make a definitive distinction that the two are not one in the same because of the intention. “Thus from the perspective of that criterion it can be seen that the natural man dies for the love of the community, the martyr for the love of God, and both shed all lesser goods. But the martyr includes among the lesser goods, the higher or highest good of the patriot.13
Yearley also makes a distinctive point about martyrdom and the death of a soldier. “To illustrate the particularity of the martyr’s case and to furnish an image to which reference can be made, it may be helpful to construct an imaginary historical situation – particularly as the characteristics of the act of martyrdom are more difficult to grasp than those of the act of the citizen soldier. One may imagine the case of an early Christian faced with either denying God’s sovereignty or being martyred.”14
Once again, Yearley indicates the ‘fortitude” is the key in discussing further similarities and distinctions between martyrdom and the mere death of a patriot: “The sacrifice of the patriot and that of the martyr—are acts of fortitude examinable in terms of their teleology. Both are based in—and formed, understood, and judged by—the love of an end or good for the sake of which fear is overcome and lesser goods discarded.”15 Yearly makes one important distinction with regard to the act of death. “St. Thomas’ perspective, a normal death like that of a martyr, is viewed as a key testing point at which one either denies or affirms a relationship to God which the very death makes even more mysterious.”16
Yearley explains another similarity between the martyr and the patriot. They both seek to achieve the same type of goal as each gives his life in honor of virtues. “The sacrifice of the patriot and that of the martyr—are acts of fortitude examinable in terms of their teleology. Both are based in—and formed, understood, and judged by—the love of an end or good for the sake of which fear is overcome and lesser goods discarded.”17
Aristotle’s understanding of dying for the sake of justice does not conflict with Aquinas’ study of martyrdom. “By looking at the way in which Aquinas defends the virtuous status of the act of martyrdom, I hope to show that there are important exceptions to the presumption that Aquinas is simply ‘Aristotle baptized’.18 Looking at the Summa and the basic ideas about the virtue of death as presented by Aristotle, most can agree that Aristotle’s ideas about courage and death that can be understood in Christian terms even though Aristotle did not know Christ.
Aquinas differs from Aristotle in the understanding of dying for the truth. Aquinas does not mean any type of truth, such as absolute truth, but rather the truth about eternal life with God. Martyrdom, for Aquinas, requires that one serves as a witness to the sanctity of Christ. “Aquinas’ dominant model of courage is not the attacking warrior, but the enduring martyr.19 By becoming a witness, the body of the individual suffers pain and agony even unto death for the sake of truth, not necessarily dying in a battlefield.
In his study Clark goes even further to distinguish between the types of battles thst lead to a virtuous death. Aquinas proposes particular kinds of human battles surpassing the idea of just a military battle as stated in Aristotle. One type is battling disease when assisting the sick. Another type is battling against others while defending and protecting things of great value especially when traveling. Both types of battle illustrates that someone puts himself into serious danger in both cases, increasing the risk of death. In both cases, virtue is the intention of the individual.
Most important of all, St. Thomas associates martyrdom with the death of Christ, putting aside all personal gain for the sake of others. “The goal or the end is better when one performs the act of virtue with faith or love of God.”20 In this sense, the martyr lays down his life for Christ. “Regardless of how much pain and affliction a person goes through it is required that a man must suffer death for Christ’s sake.”21 A martyr shows that there is nothing in this world that will satisfy him, not even death. To support this idea, Aquinas concludes in Article 5, “Faith alone is the cause of martyrdom.”
In summary, Clark’s study confirms that St. Thomas associates the virtue of courage to the virtuous death of Jesus Christ. This is one obvious point where the two philosophers do not agree. Another obvious distinction between Aquinas and Aristotle is the nature of faith with regard to suffering and dying for truth and justice. Nevertheless, Clark also confirms that for Aquinas even though martyrdom may be a shameful way to die, it is the “highest exemplification” of courage.22 In many ways Aristotle would probably agree with St. Thomas Aquinas on this point.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benzinger Brothers, Inc., 1947.
Clark, Patrick. “Is Martyrdom Virtuous? An Occasion for Rethinking the Relation of Christ and Virtue in Aquinas.” Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics. Vol. 30, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 2010), pp. 141-159, accessed March 9, 2016, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23562866.
Yearley, Lee H., “The Nature-Grace Question in the Context of Fortitude,” In The Thomist, ed. The Dominican Fathers of the Province of St. Joseph, 557-580. Washington D.C.: The Thomist Press, 1971.
1 Lee Yearley, “The Nature-Grace Question in the Context of Fortitude,” The Thomist 35 (October 1971), 564.
2 ST II-II, q. 124, art. 3, arg. 1.
3 ST II-II, q. 124, art. 3, ad. 2.
4 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benzinger Brothers, Inc., 1947), II-II 124.1, ad. 3.
5 ST II-II, q. 124, art. 4, ad. 4.
6 ST II-II, q. 124, art. 2, arg. 2.
7 Ibid., 142.
8 Ibid., 144.
9 Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 124, art. 1.
10 Clark, 144.
11 Yearley, 562.
12 Ibid., 564.
13 Ibid., 565.
14 Yearley, 562-563.
15 Ibid., 564-565.
16 Ibid., 571.
17 Ibid., 564-565.
18 Clark, 124.
19 Clark, 145.
20 ST II-II, q. 124, art. 3, co.
21 ST II-II, q. 124, art. 4, ad. 4.
22 Patrick Clark, Is Martyrdom Virtuous? An Occasion for Rethinking the Relation of Christ and Virtue in Aquinas (Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press and Society of
Christian Ethics, 2010), 141.
Essay #3
In all of the Catholic Church's history, nothing has shaken the roots of the church more than heresy. Sadly, the Middle Ages was full of them. Nothing could be seen more worse than a Catholic contradicting his or her's own faith, and getting others to follow them. Rightly so, because theology just happened to be everything to Western Europe. It was their politics, their identity, their philosophy and most importantly, their hope for salvation. In ancient Roman law, heresy was seen equal to treason. Heresy was a huge threat to royal authority and power. Heretical ideas not only divided people, but caused fights and civil wars within a monarch's kingdom. Monarchs therefore, had very good reasons to seek out and abolish heretics wherever they found them. In some instances, torture was even used: "even the limited use of torture by secular authorities came to be justified by the Church in the 13th century on the principle that it was better for a person to suffer physical pain now for a brief time if it could save them from the eternal suffering of hell" 1. The fear generated from the Inquisition helped monarchs greatly in retaining power. In the Spanish Inquisition, we see this power surge put to effect more than ever before. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella relied on and used the Spanish Inquisition in order to secure both their rule and religious preference in disguise of a "holy and just religious tribunal".
Unity, the word of hope that brought together what historians now call Christendom, was at the forefront of ideals for church leaders such as the Pope. However, unity is never a simple task. The very cornerstone of Christianity was shaken by the heresies in the medieval ages. In response to this attack on unity, the Inquisition began. Even though it was a huge movement that originally began in Italy and France, it is the Spanish Inquisition that has left its mark on the the world. Why did it have such an impact? Because the Spanish Inquisition had one fundamental trait that made it different than all the other tribunals across Western Europe; it was the crown of the Spanish Monarchy that the tribunal was solely responsible to, rather than the Pope, and was used to protect state interest. If you were a nobleman living in Spain, a heretic was not seen as a lost sheep with a misunderstanding of the truth. No, rather a heretic was not seen like the Church had taught: as someone that should be given forgiveness, proper teaching, and brought back in communion. Moreover, a heretic was seen as a threat to your power, your society, and your country. With Pope Sixtus IV no longer seen as an authoritative figure. Monarchs felt as if they themselves were chosen to handle Church affairs by God. One can only imagine how quickly things began to get out of control. The Spanish Inquisition " soon acquired a reputation for being a barbarous, repressive instrument of racial and religious intolerance that regularly employed torture as well as the death penalty as punishments, and severely restricted Spain's intellectual development for generations" 2.
Besides the Spanish Inquisition being run by secular authority, there are several issues surrounding Spain that made it a completely different situation from the rest of Europe. In the 8th century, the entire Iberian Peninsula had been conquered by Muslim jihad. Spain grew up in a constant state of warfare. "Because borders between Muslim and Christian kingdoms shifted rapidly over the centuries, it was in most rulers' interest to practice a fair degree of tolerance for other religions" 3. The country tried very hard to be tolerant, but the ability for Jews, Muslims, and Christians to all live peacefully in Spain was unheard of; regardless of whether or not Spain was the most diverse place within Europe.
During the middle ages, kings saw a dramatic increase of power and recognition. Because of this, royal authorities very much liked the Inquisition because "it was seen as an efficient way to ensure the religious health of their kingdom" 4. In wanting a good social status with the powerful King and Queen of Spain, many Jews in Spain converted to Christianity. With the recent conversion these many Jews in Spain (called conversos), tension were growing within these communities due to the already existing issues around them. For example: the conversos began to call themselves the "New Christians" and saw themselves better than the "Old Christians" because by being Jewish they asserted that they were related by blood to Christ himself. This prideful idea, along with the expansion of Jewish-Converts wealth and power led to much backlash within the Spanish communities. This resentment came especially from rich noble families in Spain along with middle class "Old Christians". Very quickly, they became jealous of the conversos and their success. These jealous noblemen, along with the tensions already there, gave way to many Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. It was said, "that the Jewish conversos were part of an elaborate plot to take over the Spanish nobility and the Catholic Church from within. “The conversos...were not sincere Christians but rather secret Jews" 5.
Whether or not these floating rumors were true, the continuous attention given to them convinced King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella that the matter should at least be investigated. In response, Pope Sixtus IV listened to their request and allowed the crown to form a tribunal "consisting of two or three priests over the age of 40" 6. King Ferdinand, was not very pleased about this, because his own court was made up of mostly conversos. Two years elapsed before he finally appointed some men to the tribunal.
In the early stages of the Inquisition, accusations were coming in much more rampantly than King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella had expected. Jews and Old Christians alike were using the inquisition as a weapon against converso enemies. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella profited very well from this. Every time a converso was found guilty, that person's money and land went straight to the monarchy. "Material and monetary confiscations occurred not only to those who had been arrested from heresy, but also to those who fled the Inquisition's Tribunal for fear of imprisonment" 7. The new treasury forged by this tribunal helped fuel the King and Queen's war against the Moors during the War of Granada, and it also helped pay the inquisitors who were now working a full time job. The Spanish Monarchy was even able to use the funds to help build their newest city Santa Fe. Before long, the reputation the King and Queen were gaining from this tribunal was so bad, that it even garnered the attention of the Pope. After receiving numerous complaints from the conversos, he issued a statement saying, "the Inquisition was engaged less in investigating heresy and the salvation of souls than in greed for profit" 8. On August 2, 1483, the Pope issued a papal bull that ordered the Spanish Catholic Monarchy to have greater leniency with the converso community. However, the Pope was ignored despite his attempts to stifle the evil that was taking place. By ignoring the Pope and the Church, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella were able to continue gaining profit from the confiscations gained in the tribunals and continue to use the courts as a "secret police" arresting anyone that tried to speak out against them. Torquemada, the ruthless man put in charge of the inquisition, had become the most powerful person in Spain next to the King and Queen. He also became the most feared and hated man throughout all of Spain. "The Spanish Inquisition, under Torquemada, had now become a secular police, court and religious tribunal that had no accountability to the Papacy in Rome and the Spanish citizens under its jurisdictions had no religious or legal recourse, either in Rome or Spain" 9.
The King and Queen ruled over Spain using the Inquisition all the way up to their deaths. However, its terror continued to rain in Spain for the next 3 centuries. The Spanish monarchy left a mixed legacy of false piousness with persecution and repression. Throughout the entirety of the Spanish Inquisition, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella were able to destroy their enemy's power, weaken all the classes, and strengthen their monarchy. The secrecy and policing behind the Spanish tribunals helped the crown not only in retaining their nobility, but also allowed them to completely take over the religious and social aspects of all their citizens. They were able to do this all under the disguise of rooting out heresy and being devoted to the Catholic Church. Because of their actions, many noble converso families were socially and financially ruined for generations to come. Along with that, it left an unremovable mark on the Catholic Church. People continue to blame the Church for the actions committed during this Inquisition despite how many historians have confirmed it was out of Pope' Sixtus IV's control. Nevertheless, the Spanish Inquisition will always be seen as one of the most horrific and frightening events within the Middle Ages.
Bibliography
Birkhaeuser, J. A. 1888. History of the Church, from Its First Establishment to Our Own Times: Designed for the Use of Ecclesiastical Seminaries and Colleges.
New York and Cincinnati: F. Pustet & Co.
Llorente, Juan Antonio. 1967. A Critical History of the Inquisition of Spain: From the Period of Its Establishment by Ferdinand V to the Reign of Ferdinand VII,
Composed from the Original Documents of the Archives of the Supreme Council of the Inquisition and from Those of Subordinate Tribunals of the Holy
Office. Williamstown, Mass.: J. Lilburne Co.
Madden, Thomas F. 2011. Heaven or Heresy : A History of the Inquisition. Unabridged. The modern scholar; Modern scholar. Prince Frederick, MD:
Recorded Books.
Nykanen, Lori. Queen Isabella and The Spanish Inquisition. 1.1 (2014): 1-48. Print.
Rawlings, Helen. 2006. The Spanish Inquisition. Historical Association studies; Historical Association studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Roth, Norman. 1995 Conversos, Inquisition, and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain. University of Wisconsin Press.
Schreck, Alan. 1987. The Compact History of the Catholic Church. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Servant Books.
1 Schreck, Alan. 1987. The Compact History of the Catholic Church. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Servant Books.
2 Rawlings, Helen. 2006. The Spanish Inquisition. Historical Association studies; Historical Association studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
3 Madden, Thomas F. 2011. Heaven or Heresy : A History of the Inquisition. Unabridged. The modern scholar; Modern scholar. Prince Frederick, MD:
Recorded Books.
4 Madden, Thomas F. 2011. Heaven or Heresy : A History of the Inquisition. Unabridged. The modern scholar; Modern scholar. Prince Frederick, MD:
Recorded Books.
5 Birkhaeuser, J. A. 1888. History of the Church, from Its First Establishment to Our Own Times: Designed for the Use of Ecclesiastical Seminaries and Colleges.
New York and Cincinnati: F. Pustet & Co.
6 Madden, Thomas F. 2011. Heaven or Heresy : A History of the Inquisition. Unabridged. The modern scholar; Modern scholar. Prince Frederick, MD:
Recorded Books.
7 Nykanen, Lori. Queen Isabella and The Spanish Inquisition. 1.1 (2014): 1-48. Print.
8 Roth, Norman. 1995 Conversos, Inquisition, and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain. University of Wisconsin Press.
9 Nykanen, Lori. Queen Isabella and The Spanish Inquisition. 1.1 (2014): 1-48. Print.